Page images

with special provision for voting a "straight ticket" by a single cross in the "party circle," or by some other method simpler than that by which a "split ticket" may be voted. The original model for this form of ballot is found, as above indicated, in the Indiana law of March 6, 1889. Third, the modified "Massachusetts" form, in which the grouping of the candidates' names under the titles of the several offices is preserved, but a special provision for voting a straight party ticket is added. The first states to adopt this form of ballot were Montana and Minnesota, on March 13 and April 24, respectively, 1889. Fourth, the modified "Indiana" form, in which the "party column" arrangement is retained, but with no special provision for voting a straight party ticket the only method of marking the ballot being a cross opposite the name of each candidate to be voted for, just as in form number one. The earliest example of this form of ballot is the Missouri act of May 16, 1889, applying only to cities of over 5000 inhabitants.

[ocr errors]

1. During the earlier years of ballot reform the most popular of these four forms was the first. In 1891 it had been adopted by sixteen states, as against thirteen which had adopted the "party column" ballot. In this same year, however, Washington changed over from the first class to the second, and from this time on the trend in the direction of the "party column" form was very marked. At the close of 1905 only ten states were found in the first class using the Massachusetts ballot.' In the last few years, however, this form of ballot (usually without party designation) has been adopted in a number of states for certain municipal, judicial, or school elections, and in 1909 Oklahoma adopted it in place of the "party column" form. Besides these actual changes there has been considerable agitation in a number of states in favor of the "Massachusetts" ballot, so that the tide may, perhaps, be fairly said to have turned.

[ocr errors]

2. The Indiana or "party column" form of ballot has been, ever since about 1891, by far the most popular in this country, having been adopted, at one time or another, by thirty-five states. At the close of the year 1891 the group of states using

1 The eleven states which at present use it for practically all elections are Arkansas, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee (only certain cities and counties), and Virginia.

it numbered thirteen. In 1905 the number had risen to twentyseven, which was the high water mark. During the next three years it fell to twenty-six, but by the close of 1909 (if North Carolina, where the "party column" form of ballot was adopted for one county, be included) it had again risen to twenty-seven.'

3. The modified "Massachusetts" form of ballot, with special provision for voting a straight party ticket, has never been very widely adopted. At one time or another it has been tried by nine different states, but at present it is used by only three of these. The general testimony from those states which have tried it is that, in its practical working, it resembles far more closely the "Indiana," than the straight "Massachusetts," form.

4. The modified "party column" form of ballot with no simple way of voting a straight ticket has been even less widely adopted than that just mentioned, and it is at present used by only two states. In its actual working this ballot resembles the straight "Massachusetts" form more nearly than does the modified "Massachusetts" form used by class number three.

In a number of states separate ballots are provided for county, city, township, judicial, or school officers (or for one or more of these classes) when the latter are elected at the same time with state and national officers. This has been done in several states from the very start; for example, in Indiana and Oklahoma. The practice was fairly common in the United States, prior to the introduction of the Australian system, of requiring separate ballots for different offices, or groups of offices, and an illustration of this may still be found in the laws of North and South Carolina. When it is adopted in connection with the Australian system, however, the number of separate ballots is seldom as large as under the earlier American laws, when it sometimes was as high as seven or eight. In recent years this practice has spread to a

1 The twenty-seven states belonging at present to this group are Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina (one county), North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

2 California, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington.

3 Colorado, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.

4 Iowa and Montana.

number of states, and is now in force in at least six states besides the two above mentioned. In a number of others constitutional amendments and questions submitted to popular vote are printed on separate ballots. The separate ballots for local or other candidates are often of a different form from the general state ballot, and usually of a different color.

One other point in regard to the form of ballot has had such an important practical bearing on the working of the several ballot laws that it deserves special mention. It is provided in nearly all the states which use the "Massachusetts," or the modified "Massachusetts," form of ballot that the name of each candidate shall be printed on the ballot in only one place. In addition, however, it is almost always provided (except where no party designations of any sort are allowed) that each candidate's name shall be followed on the ballot by the name of the party which nominated him, or, if he has been nominated for the same office by two or more parties or independent groups, by the names of all the parties or groups which have so nominated him. This arrangement is eminently fair to all parties and, since one person could hardly be allowed to run for several offices at the same time, is a logical part of the "Massachusetts" system.

In 1891, however, the provision that the name of any candidate should appear in but one place on the ballot was adopted in Indiana. This was the first time that this restriction had been applied in connection with a "party column" form of ballot, but from this time on it was adopted by one after another of the "party column" states, and it is at present in force in thirteen states of class one, and in both the states belonging to class two.3 Its effect, when combined with the "party column" arrangement, is to render the "fusion" of two or more parties very difficult. Each candidate whom the several parties combine to nominate can have his name printed, under this system, in only one column. In the other columns the most that can be done is to leave a blank space under the title of the office in question. In this case

1 These states are California, Idaho, Kansas, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

2 These are Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

3 These are Iowa and Montana.

all straight votes for these parties are blank, as far as this office is concerned, unless the voter writes in the name of the fusion candidate a thing which in actual practice few persons will take the trouble to do.' For this reason a joint, non-partisan judicial nomination, or a "fusion" municipal campaign where one of the parties has combined with one or more independent groups to oust the dominant machine, stands very much less chance of succeeding where the restriction is in force than where a candidate's name can appear in the column of every party that nominated him. Governor Hughes, in vetoing a bill which, if passed, would have introduced this rule in New York State, said: “This measure is wholly indefensible . . . as long as we retain the present form of ballot with its party columns, it would be a grave injustice to prohibit a candidate's name from appearing in more than one column." There is something to be said, however, in favor of the rule. Where it does not exist minor parties are often formed merely for the purpose of selling out their columns on the ballot to one of the larger parties for whatever they can get in exchange. Even if the minor parties or groups are entirely genuine, their multiplication results in a monstrous and unwieldy ballot (sometimes with nineteen columns, such as was necessary in New York City in 1909). The logical remedy, as Governor Hughes pointed out in the veto message above cited, is the adoption of the "Massachusetts" arrangement. Until this has been accomplished, however, the advantages which accrue to the cause of non-partisanship from an easy method of fusion far outweigh the disadvantages due to the absence of the limitation in question, especially in the case of large cities. These considerations led to the repeal of a provision of this sort in Ohio in 1906.2

It would be interesting to trace the history of other points relative to the form of the ballot and the rules for marking, such as the provision, usually held by the courts to be required under the state constitutions, that the voter may write in the name of any person whose name is not printed on the ballot as a candidate for any office, the use of "pasters" in marking the ballot and the reasons why this has generally been abolished, and

1 Todd v. Board of Election Commissioners, 104 Michigan, 474; L. R. A., Vol. XXIX, p. 330; “McCrary on Elections," 4th ed., p. 505.

2 A similar provision was declared unconstitutional in California in 1902.

finally, certain minor, but nevertheless important, details in regard to the printing and arrangement of the ballot. It would be even more interesting to discuss the actual working of the various forms of ballot and the practical reasons for the numerous changes which have been made,' but any attempt to treat these subjects satisfactorily would require too much space.

Besides the various changes noted in the form of the ballot and the rules for marking, the original Australian ballot laws have been considerably altered and elaborated in other directions. The procedure for placing the names of candidates on the ballot has been constantly amended, and most of the provisions in regard to the form of nomination certificates and petitions, the method of obtaining signatures to the latter, the time and place of filing, the choice of the party emblem (where one is used), the filling of vacancies when candidates die, resign, or are found to be disqualified, the settlement of disputes as to the "regularity" of two or more contesting claimants for a party nomination, the certification of nominations by the officers with whom they have been filed to the officers whose duty it is to supervise the actual printing of the ballots, etc., have been worked out and stated in far greater detail than was considered necessary originally.

Another portion of the several laws which has undergone more or less amendment is that which deals with the actual furnishing of ballots and other stationery, the equipment of the polling places, and the preparations for the holding of an election. In a number of states ampler provisions than formerly have been adopted for the publication, prior to an election, of the lists of candidates of the several parties, and of the constitutional amendments and other measures, if any, which are to be voted on. The provisions regulating the distribution of the ballots to the several polling places have, in most cases, been made more specific, and the procedure to be followed in case the official ballots are lost, stolen, or destroyed has been more carefully defined.

Finally, in many of the states, the rules for the handling of the ballots on election day and the general conduct of the election, including the counting of the vote, have been from time to time amended with a view to the securing of greater secrecy and

1 Certain sides of this question were very suggestively treated by the late Philip Loring Allen in the article above cited.

« PreviousContinue »